Opinion

Why the Supreme Court verdict in the coal scam is cause for both hope and despair

The verdict is an affirmation of the judiciary's strength, but the media's part in the coal allocations scandal borders on shameful.

In 2010, while reporting on Chhattisgarh’s mining sector, I first heard about the mysterious misallocations of coal mines. The lawyer and activist Sudiep Shrivastava told me that coal mines were being given to undeserving companies, allocations were in excess of demand, companies were making windfall gains, projects were not coming up, and that the whole process looked rigged to benefit a few.

I downloaded the details of the coal block allocations and began to study them. Shrivastava’s contentions appeared to have merit. India was using around 700 million tonnes of coal every year. Yet the government had hurriedly gone ahead with allocations for 44,000 million tonnes of coal.

Shrivastava wanted to investigate the allocations and file a public interest litigation in court. My aim was humbler: to draw attention to the issue by writing stories in the paper that I worked for.

But writing against the coal allocations meant taking on the dominant dogma in the country – that coal mining had to be expanded at any cost to meet the country’s energy demands. It could not be done without rock solid research. As we plumbed deeper and deeper into the datasheets, we realised that investigating the coal mess required resources that neither he nor I had. Neither activism nor journalism in this country receives the requisite, steady institutional support.

As a state correspondent, I did not have access to the coal ministry in Delhi. I also felt that if indeed so much was amiss, those covering the ministry in Delhi would surely know about it.

The auditor’s report

The media failed to call attention to the coal block allocation scam until it had the safe stick of an auditor’s report to beat the government with. In 2012, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India estimated that India had lost Rs 1.86 lakh crore by giving out coal blocks without auctions. The allocations had been made through a screening committee made up of bureaucrats pliable to influence and political interference.

Soon after the CAG report was leaked to the press, editors, who had previously scoffed at the possibility that coal allocations could have been manipulated, displayed new-found zeal to pursue the story.

The United Progressive Alliance government was already tainted by allegations of malfeasance. Readers and viewers had a huge appetite for stories on corruption. And there were enough small-sized companies that had bagged coal blocks that could be exposed without the worry of lawsuits or loss of advertising revenue.

For weeks, there was frenzied reporting on the subject. But it ended as soon as it started to threaten serious corporate interests.

Thankfully a lawyer, ML Sharma, decided to file a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court challenging the allocations. The non-profit Common Cause, led by Prashant Bhushan, filed another petition shortly after.

In support of these petitions, Sudiep Shrivastava, the lawyer from Chhattisgarh, provided his own meticulous accumulation of evidence. Although this was not admitted as a petition, it was brought on the record by the court.

The verdict

Taking a cue from the CAG, it was now up to India’s apex court to call a spade a spade.

This is precisely what it has done. In their judgement, Justice RM Lodha, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph have come to a scathing conclusion:

“The Screening Committee has never been consistent, it has not been transparent, there is no proper application of mind, it has acted on no material in many cases, relevant factors have seldom been its guiding factors, there was no transparency and guidelines have seldom guided it. On many occasions, guidelines have been honoured more in their breach. There was no objective criteria, nay, no criteria for evaluation of comparative merits. The approach had been ad-hoc and casual. There was no fair and transparent procedure, all resulting in unfair distribution of the national wealth. Common good and public interest have, thus, suffered heavily."

Not only did the court maintain that the process was arbitrary, it pointed out that the policy violated a law that mandated that mining allocations should be made by the states and approved by the Centre, and not made by the Centre and executed by the states, as had happened in the case of coal.

The aftermath

The allocations have been held illegal and arbitrary but they have not been cancelled yet. The court has said it will hold more hearings to determine a future course of action.

One complication for the court is that some of the allocated blocks have started production. During the course of the hearings, the government argued that cancelling the allocations would jeopardise investments amounting to more than Rs two lakh crore.

This, however, is a misleading number.

For one, only 39 of the 218 blocks allocated since 1993 had come into production till December 2013. This number alone is enough to underline the colossal failure of the captive coal block policy.

Two, only a small part of the investment figure cited by the government relates to investment in the coal mines. By its own admission, this came to Rs 8,777 crore for 47 blocks, including 30 under production and 17 nearing production. Limiting the figure to 30 projects, the figure comes down to less than Rs 4,000 crore. The rest of the investment has been made in the end-use projects, which can get coal supplies through Coal India Limited even if the mines are taken back.

At the very least, the government can take back the coal blocks from those who have not started mining them. These mines could then be auctioned through competitive bidding.

Those whose mines are already under production, or those whose end-use projects are complete, could be made to pay a premium through higher royalties for access to cheaper coal. This would equalise the benefits they draw over their competitors and create a level playing field for power producers.

Lost in the din over corruption was the fact that the allocations were also anti-competition: a small number of companies had cornered resources, leaving others out in the cold. Many who had set up power projects were buying coal and incurring higher costs while those without projects were comfortably sitting on reserves.

Undue gains

Oddly enough, the idea of charging a premium from those holding captive coalmines has come not from activists but from the Maharashtra government, which belatedly – and rather surprisingly – admitted in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court in January this year that the coal block allocations have given “undue gains” to companies. Maharashtra is ruled by a Congress government, which made this admission even more surprising. But confessions are often ploys to preempt punishment. Offering ideas for partial cancellations might be the best way to stave off a wholesale rout.

In the next few days, expect to read commentary that makes ominous warnings against judicial overreach. The courts, someone is sure to argue, cannot decide India’s economic policy. But reading the judgment shows that the court’s statements are well within its rights. It has accepted the government’s position that the economic crisis of the early 1990s necessitated the introduction of a policy that would encourage the private sector to set up power and steel projects. It acknowledges that the eight-year delay in adopting competitive bidding, even after it was mooted by the coal secretary, created avoidable controversy. But it stops short in making any further adverse comment on the government.

“The administrative decision of the Government not to pursue competitive bidding cannot be said to be so arbitrary or unreasonable warranting judicial interference,” the judgement says. “It is not the domain of the Court to evaluate the advantages of competitive bidding vis-à-vis other methods of distribution/disposal of natural resources.”

In that sense, the verdict is welcome affirmation of the strength of India’s judiciary.

It should fill us with hope.

But I must admit it also fills me despair. Why do we always need the auditors and the court to bail us out?

The telecom scandal caused losses to the national exchequer. The coal scam threatened to do much worse. It was not just a story of corruption among India’s elite. It was also a story of the plunder of forests where some of India’s poorest communities live. And it affected all of us – next time you complain about a power cut, remember that a coal scam is partly to blame.

As journalists, we are supposed to write the first draft of history. Why then do we keep missing the most important stories of our times?

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

What hospitals can do to drive entrepreneurship and enhance patient experience

Hospitals can perform better by partnering with entrepreneurs and encouraging a culture of intrapreneurship focused on customer centricity.

At the Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, visitors don’t have to worry about navigating their way across the complex hospital premises. All they need to do is download wayfinding tools from the installed digital signage onto their smartphone and get step by step directions. Other hospitals have digital signage in surgical waiting rooms that share surgery updates with the anxious families waiting outside, or offer general information to visitors in waiting rooms. Many others use digital registration tools to reduce check-in time or have Smart TVs in patient rooms that serve educational and anxiety alleviating content.

Most of these tech enabled solutions have emerged as hospitals look for better ways to enhance patient experience – one of the top criteria in evaluating hospital performance. Patient experience accounts for 25% of a hospital’s Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) score as per the US government’s Centres for Medicare and Mediaid Services (CMS) programme. As a Mckinsey report says, hospitals need to break down a patient’s journey into various aspects, clinical and non-clinical, and seek ways of improving every touch point in the journey. As hospitals also need to focus on delivering quality healthcare, they are increasingly collaborating with entrepreneurs who offer such patient centric solutions or encouraging innovative intrapreneurship within the organization.

At the Hospital Leadership Summit hosted by Abbott, some of the speakers from diverse industry backgrounds brought up the role of entrepreneurship in order to deliver on patient experience.

Getting the best from collaborations

Speakers such as Dr Naresh Trehan, Chairman and Managing Director - Medanta Hospitals, and Meena Ganesh, CEO and MD - Portea Medical, who spoke at the panel discussion on “Are we fit for the world of new consumers?”, highlighted the importance of collaborating with entrepreneurs to fill the gaps in the patient experience eco system. As Dr Trehan says, “As healthcare service providers we are too steeped in our own work. So even though we may realize there are gaps in customer experience delivery, we don’t want to get distracted from our core job, which is healthcare delivery. We would rather leave the job of filling those gaps to an outsider who can do it well.”

Meena Ganesh shares a similar view when she says that entrepreneurs offer an outsider’s fresh perspective on the existing gaps in healthcare. They are therefore better equipped to offer disruptive technology solutions that put the customer right at the center. Her own venture, Portea Medical, was born out of a need in the hitherto unaddressed area of patient experience – quality home care.

There are enough examples of hospitals that have gained significantly by partnering with or investing in such ventures. For example, the Children’s Medical Centre in Dallas actively invests in tech startups to offer better care to its patients. One such startup produces sensors smaller than a grain of sand, that can be embedded in pills to alert caregivers if a medication has been taken or not. Another app delivers care givers at customers’ door step for check-ups. Providence St Joseph’s Health, that has medical centres across the U.S., has invested in a range of startups that address different patient needs – from patient feedback and wearable monitoring devices to remote video interpretation and surgical blood loss monitoring. UNC Hospital in North Carolina uses a change management platform developed by a startup in order to improve patient experience at its Emergency and Dermatology departments. The platform essentially comes with a friendly and non-intrusive way to gather patient feedback.

When intrapreneurship can lead to patient centric innovation

Hospitals can also encourage a culture of intrapreneurship within the organization. According to Meena Ganesh, this would mean building a ‘listening organization’ because as she says, listening and being open to new ideas leads to innovation. Santosh Desai, MD& CEO - Future Brands Ltd, who was also part of the panel discussion, feels that most innovations are a result of looking at “large cultural shifts, outside the frame of narrow business”. So hospitals will need to encourage enterprising professionals in the organization to observe behavior trends as part of the ideation process. Also, as Dr Ram Narain, Executive Director, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, points out, they will need to tell the employees who have the potential to drive innovative initiatives, “Do not fail, but if you fail, we still back you.” Innovative companies such as Google actively follow this practice, allowing employees to pick projects they are passionate about and work on them to deliver fresh solutions.

Realizing the need to encourage new ideas among employees to enhance patient experience, many healthcare enterprises are instituting innovative strategies. Henry Ford System, for example, began a system of rewarding great employee ideas. One internal contest was around clinical applications for wearable technology. The incentive was particularly attractive – a cash prize of $ 10,000 to the winners. Not surprisingly, the employees came up with some very innovative ideas that included: a system to record mobility of acute care patients through wearable trackers, health reminder system for elderly patients and mobile game interface with activity trackers to encourage children towards exercising. The employees admitted later that the exercise was so interesting that they would have participated in it even without a cash prize incentive.

Another example is Penn Medicine in Philadelphia which launched an ‘innovation tournament’ across the organization as part of its efforts to improve patient care. Participants worked with professors from Wharton Business School to prepare for the ideas challenge. More than 1,750 ideas were submitted by 1,400 participants, out of which 10 were selected. The focus was on getting ideas around the front end and some of the submitted ideas included:

  • Check-out management: Exclusive waiting rooms with TV, Internet and other facilities for patients waiting to be discharged so as to reduce space congestion and make their waiting time more comfortable.
  • Space for emotional privacy: An exclusive and friendly space for individuals and families to mourn the loss of dear ones in private.
  • Online patient organizer: A web based app that helps first time patients prepare better for their appointment by providing check lists for documents, medicines, etc to be carried and giving information regarding the hospital navigation, the consulting doctor etc.
  • Help for non-English speakers: Iconography cards to help non-English speaking patients express themselves and seek help in case of emergencies or other situations.

As Arlen Meyers, MD, President and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs, says in a report, although many good ideas come from the front line, physicians must also be encouraged to think innovatively about patient experience. An academic study also builds a strong case to encourage intrapreneurship among nurses. Given they comprise a large part of the front-line staff for healthcare delivery, nurses should also be given the freedom to create and design innovative systems for improving patient experience.

According to a Harvard Business Review article quoted in a university study, employees who have the potential to be intrapreneurs, show some marked characteristics. These include a sense of ownership, perseverance, emotional intelligence and the ability to look at the big picture along with the desire, and ideas, to improve it. But trust and support of the management is essential to bringing out and taking the ideas forward.

Creating an environment conducive to innovation is the first step to bringing about innovation-driven outcomes. These were just some of the insights on healthcare management gleaned from the Hospital Leadership Summit hosted by Abbott. In over 150 countries, Abbott, which is among the top 100 global innovator companies, is working with hospitals and healthcare professionals to improve the quality of health services.

To read more content on best practices for hospital leaders, visit Abbott’s Bringing Health to Life portal here.

This article was produced on behalf of Abbott by the Scroll.in marketing team and not by the Scroll.in editorial staff.